In a democracy, we have no choice but to work with the elected representatives. But, our dear Bangaloreans, by turning their backs to the polling booths on the election day, have lost a golden opportunity to have their say, if not their way.
The end of the first phase of elections had the Bangalorean sport a rather uncomfortable mantle. A dismal 44 per cent voter turnout from one of India’s most happening cities paled before its proud heritage of being host to an informed, vocal and politically aware populace. In a rush came the conclusions, about the cynical urban voter, a widespread disenchantment with the choice of candidates, about the disconnected middle-class.
Yet, there were analysts who questioned the voter-turnout percentage itself, the method of playing with mere numbers. They saw in the apparent fall in bogus voters a positive sign. Their message was clear: Stop harping on the poor turnout, celebrate the rise in “genuine” voters. Focus instead on the large-scale disappearance of names from the voters list.
This optimism, although not widespread, was built on a sound understanding of the voting pattern and the methodology over the years. It was a far cry from the logic of the political players: That the Election Commission’s disciplinarian stance on campaigning had kept the voters away.
Indeed, the Commission’s election code restrictions were strict. Most candidates had adhered to the norms, and the election heat never reached its high pitch. Yet, was this reason enough for the voter to keep away? Perhaps the string of holidays that preceded and followed the election day prompted many Bangaloreans to take off, reasoned the men in khadi.
Weeks before the elections, an informed citizenry was at its vocal best, compelling every voting-age Bangalorean to queue up before the polling booth. But even a virtual media blitzkreig on the need to vote apparently failed to enthuse the average urban voter. It was strange but true. The vocal outcry against the lack of infrastructure, pathetic civic amenities and an apparently indifferent governance mechanism had not translated into an active vote for change.
Political observers quickly got into the rationalising mode. The middle-class apathy, many ruled, stemmed from a belief that things can be done without the politician. That things could be accomplished without the intervention of that well-connected local leader. That the middle class had more trust in effecting changes through alternative routes than the once-in-a-five-year vote.
Yet, despite these arguments, there were analysts like Janaagraha founder Ramesh Ramanathan who virtually turned the table on the low voter turnout debate. The malaise of “bogus voting” that had skewed poll outcomes in the past was drastically down this year, he contended.
Yet, in black and white, the unanalysed data painted a bleak picture of Bangalore’s voting record. In the 21 constituencies that fell under the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) limits, the turnout was abysmally poor. And it was clearly the lowest record among the 11 districts that went to polls in the first phase. In fact, it was 3.5 per cent less than those who had turned up in the previous 2004 elections.
